Dutch Whac-A-Mole Game Against The Pirate Bay Apparently Works Better Without Due Process

from the judicial-miscarriage dept

Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting, briefly, Tim Kuik, the head of BREIN, the Dutch anti-piracy group that has been fighting against file sharing on a variety of fronts. We had an enjoyable conversation (as part of a larger discussion) in which he insisted that he and BREIN recognized the future opportunities of the digital market, and that BREIN was not interested in trying to put the genie back in the bottle -- in response to my suggestion that too many in the industry were trying to do exactly that. That may be true, but it's difficult to see how that's the case when immediately after this we hear of stories about BREIN going to court to shut down a proxy by the Dutch Pirate Party to point people to The Pirate Bay -- a site that BREIN has forced ISPs to block.

Of course, blocking sites on the web is impossible, and the silly continued whac-a-mole against proxies seems like a huge waste of time and resources that could have been put towards helping to develop compelling new business models. But, a much bigger concern is the process by which this latest proxy was shut down. Or, rather, I should note it's not so much the process, but the lack of due process. That is, a court ordered the proxy to be taken down without allowing the Dutch Pirate Party to testify on its own behalf:

The Pirate Party was not heard in the matter (ex parte) and according to board member “blauwbaard” the judge ignored their requests to be heard.

“The judge has decided to ignore our express and valid request to have the injunction either denied flat-out, or to at least be heard in the matter before a decision was made,” blauwbaard states in a response.

“This decision is even more strange because BREIN was allowed to bring over 20 pages of arguments to convince the judge to stretch a quaint rule of IP-law, meant to block the sudden appearance of mass quantities of counterfeited goods, far enough to be applied to the website of a political party.”

A court ordering a website taken down without allowing the site itself to speak on its behalf? That seems pretty extreme. A proxy is simply a redirect in a case like this. It's something just about anyone can do, and chasing after each and every proxy -- and then not allowing them to speak for themselves in court, seems like a perfect example of trying to put the genie back in the bottle, no matter how much BREIN insists that's not their goal.

And, unfortunately, the story gets even worse, the more it moves forward. The Dutch Pirate Party replaced their proxy with a page that
linked to other proxies as well as an explanation of their position. This seems like a classic free speech situation. Except... BREIN claimed that even those links to other proxies violated the injunction, and have demanded the party take them down as well. The Pirate Party appears to be getting ready to fight this, noting that BREIN keeps trying to rewrite the specifics of the court's order (i.e., trying to stuff that genie back into the bottle) every time a different website shows how ridiculous it is to ban internet access to a website.

The Pirate Party (like TPB staff) are being assholes to a very high level on this one. They are trying to prove a point, but in doing so, they are just making it easier and easier for groups like BREIN to push for more stringent regulation of the internet.

It's absolute insane for anyone with a brain to be supporting Pirate Party at this point, they are only making it worse.

Re: Re: Pow, Zoom to Mars!

Well, there are certain logical limits.
Once any given corporation has full rights to your life, thoughts, gene sequence, actions, future, past, biological derivations, body parts, and anything which can be intuited, inducted or deducted from any of the information about any of these things, then there's not much more for them to take.

extreme

yessss the more extreme this gets the better. it will open the eyes of a lot more people to the absurdity of the demands of brein. i am not a supporter of tpp propaganda, but brein and backers have asked for this war.

Re: Re:

No, you missed the point. Standing up to it is one thing, but there is a point where you need to pick your battles in a productive manner, and not to just thumb your nose at people.

The Pirate Party lost. They need to accept that fact and stop being dicks about it. It clouds anything else they do, making them appear to be unwilling to work within the law, unwilling to accept defeat graciously, and generally looking like sore losers.

Re: Re: Re:

Except for when did they even get the chance to fight in court? Did you miss the part in the article where it states they were ignored when trying to dispute this? It isn't a fight when only 1 person is involved.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

When it comes to an injunction like this (which is, in the end, extending an existing ruling) there really isn't an adversarial situation. It's just the judge taking the existing ruling and applying it as written.

The time for debate is already over. There is no dispute, just a group ignoring an existing ruling from the courts.

Re: Re: Re: Pow, Zoom to Mars!

Re: Re: Re:

"...making them appear to be unwilling to work within the law..."

In our (Dutch) juridical system, this is not an issue. If you believe you are right, you are allowed to defend yourself without being considered an "enemy of the state". It is great that the Pirate Party is forcing the court to hear both sides and thoroughly explore the ramifications of the law. For example, there is new evidence that the block of the Pirate Bay by two providers did not work at all: that should be a strong argument against BREIN's case.

Re: Re:

Not exactly: 1. the ruling was not about these proxies and not against the PP; 2. there is new evidence that BREIN's demands are disproportional (an important issue in Dutch law), because there is strong evidence that blocking the Pirate Bay has not worked at all (it has been blocked by two ISPs for a few months, but not by the others, including mine).

Re: What next?

You can certainly complain about the lack of due process, but The Pirate Bay was using the time delay inherent in due process to start the whack-a-mole game in the first place. So "abuse it and lose it" seems fair to me.

Isn't abuse of the legal system something that we condemned Righthaven for? I remember us applauding the judges who cut through that bullshit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

When it comes to an injunction like this (which is, in the end, extending an existing ruling) there really isn't an adversarial situation. It's just the judge taking the existing ruling and applying it as written.

The time for debate is already over. There is no dispute, just a group ignoring an existing ruling from the courts.

Um, that's not how the law works. You don't get to issue a ruling against a party who was not subject to the suit and had no say in the matter. The judge is not applying the ruling as written, he is extending it to situations not covered by the ruling. And there obviously is a dispute or the party impacted wouldn't be asking for a hearing.

Look, you used to represent the regular "opposition" in these comments, but at the very least you didn't look like a total fool by stating things that were obviously untrue. Somewhere, recently, you changed, and now you just disagree with anything, even if you have to flat out lie about it.

You look foolish. At the very least, you used to base your silly arguments on facts, with dumb assumptions. Now you make dumb assumptions and base them on lies. Is your life really that sad?

Re:

Maybe...

if these retarded shills stopped bitching and fighting piracy so much, it wouldn't be so advertised to the general masses. Once you start telling people that there are sites out there offering entire collections of music for free, people are going to get curious. Just forget about piracy, accept that it will always happen (like in the past when people counter-fitted physical mediums), and keep the money wasted fighting it with legislation and lawyers as profit. I bet these companies are spending more fighting it than they are losing to it.

Every download DOES NOT EQUAL a lost sale...it does not equate to stealing (no one experienced a loss of property that could have been sold)...and it will always be around.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually, if ISPs have been ordered by the court to disable access. and the pirate party as a result specifically created a method to bypass that order, seeking and injunction doesn't always trigger an adversarial process until after that order is issues. Think temporary restraining order.

Re: Re:

Re:

Rosa Parks is being an asshole to a very high level on this one. She's trying to prove a point, but in doing so, she's just making it easier and easier for groups like the transit system to push for more stringent regulation of sitting on the back of the bus.

It's absolute insane for anyone with a brain to be supporting Rosa Parks at this point, she is only making it worse.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wrong, an order cannot be adjusted without all procedural fairness (due process) occurring for all sides to have their say. Whether that is in the EU, UK, CAN, US, whatever jurisdiction they are ALL the same. Even more so in the EU where this occurred due to EU court of Justice and the UNHRC

Basically what you are stating is that:
* Bail conditions can be changed without defendant being represented at all
* Terms of restraining order can be rescinded, changed or added to without all sides being represented.
* Contracts can be one sided
* Appeals can use "new evidence" that wasn't brought up in original case without the other side having chance to oppose
and the big one
* I believe that we should wipe out 2000 years of unbiased action by judicial officers so that they only get to look at who I say they do

Oh and with your TRO example, a TRO is only used in exigent circumstances where balance of probabilities suggest that "harm" will occur. And this order was not temporary nor based on "harm", though it was biased and very bad law by the judge that has instead harmed the court.

Re: Re:

Actually that would be an amazing campaign: the Pirate Party should create QR code stickers of TPB link to place all over the country IRL! I wonder how BREIN would feel about that type of circumvention...

Re: Re:

Just because you say the same thing three, four times doesn't make it true.

These injunctions (actually 'ex parte beschikking') are intended to settle urgent matters quickly, before irrevocable harm is done, and then possibly sort it out later in court. You have the full right to fight an injunction; what the pirate party is doing is entirely normal.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's not censored if it can still be viewed. Censored means it's not viewable at all. It disappears into the nether. Etc.

Sorry, but you're basically an idiot without a clue.

And no, all law enforcement is NOT "whac-a-mole".

Also, pointing out the flaws in piracy enforcement and advocating for due process while advocating for the continuation of our rights and not the revoking of them at the behest of corporations DOES NOT make someone a piracy apologist.

Sheesh. Look, get new material or fuck off. It's boring seeing your same 5 comments pop up in every article. That's why they get "censored" (aka reported and easily viewable by clicking one simple thing that basically says "Want to see this comment? Click here.")

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually it was NOT censorship..

What it is is that community at large has reported the comment for not complying to community standards of decorum or netiquette.

After a set amount of those reports being given by UNIQUE presses (IP locked) the comment is flagged as inappropriate though is stilled viewable (and searchable) with a warning/caveat up front that the community considers the comment as wrongful.

Censorship is defined as the suppression of communication which the community considers harmful, obscene, or otherwise and should be removed fully.

The comment is still there, still searchable, still able to be viewed in context and still able to be laughed at and ridiculed by all.

"You cannot steal what cannot be diminished.
You cannot steal what cannot be diminished.
You cannot steal what cannot be diminished.
You cannot steal what cannot be diminished.
You cannot steal what cannot be diminished.
You cannot steal what cannot be diminished.
You cannot steal what cannot be diminished.
You cannot steal what cannot be diminished.
You cannot steal what cannot be diminished.
You cannot steal what cannot be diminished.
You cannot steal what cannot be diminished.
You cannot steal what cannot be diminished.."

And also, this:

"I must not love money.
I must not love money.
I must not love money.
I must not love money.
I must not love money.
I must not love money.
I must not love money.
I must not love money.
I must not love money.
I must not love money.
I must not love money.
I must not love money.
I must not love money..."

Keep repeating those over and over again until they sink in. That maximalist programming has to end somewhere...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Don Quixote ["The Man of Le Mancha" for you philistines ;) ] has done tremendously well ever since it was published, way back in 15th Century.

Though your tilting at windmills implies the "attacking of imaginary enemies" idiom I guess.

Therefore history has nothing about imaginary enemies since imaginary enemies by definition do not actually exist.

You instead might want to consider the fable of the Emperors clothes where the denial of the obvious, like the Industry you shill for, is shown to be a delusional fantasy brought about by fear and propaganda that is pierced by the truth shown by one small voice.

By the way.. you are NOT the small voice of the truth, you instead represent the main theme throughout Don Quixote.. Deception

Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's funny when DNS blocking and search engine delisting was being discussed in the context of SOPA it was called censorship because it was being hidden but was still accessible. How's this different?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Perhaps because when a comment is "hidden" here, it isn't very hidden. There's an easy-to-click link, in red, telling you to click it to see the comment.

DNS blocking actually does hide the site, in that if you didn't already know the IP address of the site, there's no way you can get there. Now, if DNS blocking were implemented so you got a page with a link that takes you to the "blocked" site, your comparison might work.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Um, that's not how the law works. You don't get to issue a ruling against a party who was not subject to the suit and had no say in the matter.

I'm not sure this is a legal ruling out of left field. Courts can and do issue orders for the seizure of disputed property, no matter who possesses it. Orders broadly refer to the item, not necessarily who possesses it. This is hardly the sputtering outrage you depict it as being.

Re: Re: Re:

Oh noes, the Pirate Party lost. If only there was some way to turn this defeat around. Like, if some court would say that the Dutch anti-piracy organization overreached, and that it shouldn't be allowed to shut down the Pirate Party proxy site...